4 ms·

"Police Officers Don't Check Their Civil Rights at the Station House Door." Why not? I check a lot of my civil rights at the door when a police officer pulls

"Police Officers Don't Check Their Civil Rights at the Station House Door." Why not? I check a lot of my civil rights at the door when a police officer pulls me over. Slightly more seriously, check this out: “There’s no chain of custody with these videos,” Pasco says. “How do you know the video hasn’t been edited? How do we know what’s in the video hasn’t been taken out of context? With dashboard cameras or police security video, the evidence is in the hands of law enforcement the entire time, so it’s admissible under the rules of evidence. That’s not the case with these cell phone videos.” Did he really say that with a straight face?

byoung2 16y ago
Similarly, when you go to work, you check some more of your civil rights at the door. For example, free speech is limited (e.g. no dirty jokes, because of sexual harassment claims).
eli 16y ago
Lack of chain of custody seems like a plausible (though hardly airtight) argument for excluding a tape from evidence at a trial. Not for arresting the person holding the camera.
- mquander 16y ago
  I agree -- I sacrificed clarity for flippancy. I meant to imply that the idea that police videos are sacrosanct because they have chain of custody is laughable. The police are the parties with the greatest motive to doctor the videos, and how many times have you heard that important video evidence of alleged police brutality is "missing" or "lost?" Pretty damn often.
- timwiseman 16y ago
  I am not a lawyer, so if anyone has legal expertise please correct me, but I do not think lack of chain of custody is at all a reason to exclude any form of evidence. Now, what it does do is provide an opening for arguments that that evidence has been tampered with. That claim must then be dealt with, but there are ways of doing that. There are experts that are precisely employed to determine to a high degree of accuracy (though not certainy) whether such things have been modified since their point of creation. Moreover, the exisence of a chain of custody does not absolutely prove it was not tampered with, it can certainly help in that you know who was accountable if it was modified at certain points of time but that is not the same.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  Yes, somewhat. It's pretty easy to tell if something has been edited. All but the most expensive professional cameras compress the video they record and editing leaves 'fingerprints' in the file. On cheaper cameras like cellphones, the lens is so cheap and compression so brutal that the images are pretty noisy, and the noise is actually an aid in this because sudden discontinuities are a giveaway that something has been doctored. These three individuals are really sounding like parodies of themselves, essentially claiming that only evidence they collect is admissible. By that standard, defense attorneys in criminal cases should never be allowed to submit evidence, because anything not coming from the police could be fake. In any case, the court is the trier of fact, not the DA or the officer on the street. Police officers and prosecutors do a necessary, but often unpleasant and dangerous job, with a complex mix of responsibilities and liabilities. I don't like to stereotype them any more than I do poor people or even criminals. But when they offer such nakedly self-serving arguments designed to bypass critical thinking, I want to see them out on their ass ASAP - it does a disservice to all the dedicated individuals who serve with integrity.

byoung2 16y ago

Similarly, when you go to work, you check some more of your civil rights at the door. For example, free speech is limited (e.g. no dirty jokes, because of sexual harassment claims).

eli 16y ago

Lack of chain of custody seems like a plausible (though hardly airtight) argument for excluding a tape from evidence at a trial. Not for arresting the person holding the camera.

mquander 16y ago
I agree -- I sacrificed clarity for flippancy. I meant to imply that the idea that police videos are sacrosanct because they have chain of custody is laughable. The police are the parties with the greatest motive to doctor the videos, and how many times have you heard that important video evidence of alleged police brutality is "missing" or "lost?" Pretty damn often.
timwiseman 16y ago
I am not a lawyer, so if anyone has legal expertise please correct me, but I do not think lack of chain of custody is at all a reason to exclude any form of evidence. Now, what it does do is provide an opening for arguments that that evidence has been tampered with. That claim must then be dealt with, but there are ways of doing that. There are experts that are precisely employed to determine to a high degree of accuracy (though not certainy) whether such things have been modified since their point of creation. Moreover, the exisence of a chain of custody does not absolutely prove it was not tampered with, it can certainly help in that you know who was accountable if it was modified at certain points of time but that is not the same.
anigbrowl 16y ago
Yes, somewhat. It's pretty easy to tell if something has been edited. All but the most expensive professional cameras compress the video they record and editing leaves 'fingerprints' in the file. On cheaper cameras like cellphones, the lens is so cheap and compression so brutal that the images are pretty noisy, and the noise is actually an aid in this because sudden discontinuities are a giveaway that something has been doctored. These three individuals are really sounding like parodies of themselves, essentially claiming that only evidence they collect is admissible. By that standard, defense attorneys in criminal cases should never be allowed to submit evidence, because anything not coming from the police could be fake. In any case, the court is the trier of fact, not the DA or the officer on the street. Police officers and prosecutors do a necessary, but often unpleasant and dangerous job, with a complex mix of responsibilities and liabilities. I don't like to stereotype them any more than I do poor people or even criminals. But when they offer such nakedly self-serving arguments designed to bypass critical thinking, I want to see them out on their ass ASAP - it does a disservice to all the dedicated individuals who serve with integrity.